Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#321

Post by bostonsre »

throwaway9274 wrote: post #145
dekhn wrote: post #115

"Skyrocket" is a word people use when they don't have the data to support their claim, but want to make it sound as extreme as possible. When I hear "skyrocket" I think "several orders of magnitude in a very short time". But the source of the quote with skyrocket, basically admits that they didn't have any quantitative evidence to support a massive change in incidents. Remember: reality is banal. Things are far bette…

Absolutely right. To situate in terms of recent events, there have been three stages of trying to delay / influence the California CPUC robotaxi expansion approval vote: 1. Tried a politician scare campaign. Failed because it was too transparent it was an attempted distraction from their terrible public safety record. 2. Tried coning and disabling the vehicles. Failed because it was too transparently astroturfed, leg…

> 3. Now attempting leaks of cherry-picked vanity metrics so massaged they can’t fairly be called “statistics” to friendly anti-tech local media.

The situations where they do stupid stuff are also relatively rare. But they are programs, won't they do the same stupid stuff in those situations when they come across them again? If they run over fire hoses in one case, shouldn't that be a show stopper? This isn't some silly app or website, the whole move fast and break things attitude shouldn't be allowed for driverless cars. They should be acknowledging their shortcomings and striving for perfection.

> Local politicians need to find another anti-tech boogeyman. This one is too vital to the revitalization of SF.

How does it help the revitalization of SF? Doesn't it take away jobs for those in the lower rung of society? The only people I can possibly see benefiting are the people that work at the companies that make the cars.

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#322

Post by HWR_14 »

__loam wrote: post #135
HWR_14 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. I'm not sure that's a bad goal for the average SF resident.

The average SF resident probably works for a tech company considering how many natives have been driven out by high housing costs. Tech companies are an enormous source of tax revenue for the city and many public services quite literally depend on that revenue. One of the major issues in the city now is the city government's obstinate refusal to approve more housing development. The idea that tech workers are gentrif…

A public schoolteacher in San Francisco needs to make 30,000 a year more than they are getting paid now just to be above the poverty level. Maybe it's bad for the teachers and other people not in tech if there are that many people running around spending tons of money.

But it's not a question. Most people in SF (let alone those who commute in) do not work for tech companies.

Edit: Teachers need to make 25,000 a year more to no longer qualify for need-based government aid. Not 30,000.

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#323

Post by 14u2c »

nerdbert wrote: post #262
Aurornis wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A 60lb e-bike can also transport a 200 lb person whilst using far less resources (both to make the vehicle and to operate it) and space. E-bikes are great for the situations, climates, and people who can use them. E-bikes are not a substitute for the majority of people’s transportation needs. I think the young, healthy people who live in moderate climates with good weather, short commutes, and little need to haul a…

They work for the majority of people of all ages who live in cities where the infrastructure has been properly built to accommodate bikes. Most people rarely need to haul anything and can use carshare when they do. I've demoed a multistory house down to the bricks and re-built it from the outside in without a car. Hired someone to haul off a dumpster several times. For major materials deliveries, like beams or window…

I'm guessing you live somewhere that does not get very cold. I love my ebike but sometimes it's just not feasible.

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#324

Post by majormajor »

jtriangle wrote: post #237
cashsterling wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why the other reply to this post got downvoted to hell. THe person has a point. Fully autonomous cars are cool... don't get me wrong. But electric cars and autonomous electric/gas cars are probably not the right solution to our person transport needs. using energy to move a 4000 lb vehicle to transport one or two 200 lb humans is not energy-efficient... most of the energy is spent just moving the vehicle…

Cool, you have an affordable, tenuously waterproofed, chinese mass produced e-bike, it's your only available mode of transportation, you need to go into the office for a meeting, and it's raining. Welcome to hell. Also, not sure if you've used public transportation recently, but man, it SUCKS. Far less time efficient than a car, often crowded during the times you want to use it, and ZERO enforcement of proper etiquet…

About 11 years ago I road some rush hour subways in China for a couple weeks while working in an office out there for a project.

It was clean, people were quiet, all the sort of "crime" or "etiquette" concerns seemed addressed from my POV.

It was still terrible because it was crowded as hell and we were packed in and standing up for 20-40 minutes. From talking to locals, people's commute time tolerance still stretched out and with cost of living and demand and all that, it was no "just take a jaunty 5 minute walk to work" paradise compared to the US.

Maybe that 40 min standing is better for my long-term posture and joint health than sitting in a car? But it would still be a really really really hard sell.

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#325

Post by minwcnt5 »

ketralnis wrote: post #20
codampa01314 wrote: post #11

> In San Francisco, those problems can mean self-driving cars blocking traffic, transit and emergency responders, as well as erratic behavior resulting in close calls with cyclists, pedestrians or other vehicles. I have mixed feelings about how to test self-driving vehicles (mostly stemming from ignorance). But at some point don't you have to get this stuff out in the wild to see how it behaves or else we are resigne…

> at some point don't you have to get this stuff out in the wild to see how it behaves or else we are resigned to not making progress on this It's not my problem whether Waymo makes progress on their technology, but they make it my problem when they hit me with their car. I do have sympathy for wanting to make the progress: we might make better pacemakers faster by testing out 20 designs on 20 people. But nobody want…

They've been testing this before putting it on public roads for what, 12 years?

How much longer do you think they should keep testing it off of public roads beyond when they think they're ready?

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#326

Post by saalweachter »

jeffbee wrote: post #266
saalweachter wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US rate is 0.57 fatalities per 100 million passenger miles.

The national average rate has a denominator that is bloated up with easy freeway miles. Cruise and Waymo never leave SF city streets.

> Although 20 percent of people in the U.S. live in rural areas and 32 percent of the vehicle miles traveled occur in rural areas, 40 percent of crash deaths occur there.

https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/urban...

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#327

Post by dekhn »

laweijfmvo wrote: post #24

What seems odd to me is that hardly anyone in SF seems to want them there (citizens, officials) yet it keeps getting pushed through?

You're just seeing the loudest folks who are the most extreme, not the actual mean opinion.

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#328

Post by jrmg »

9991 wrote: post #316
jrmg wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, and further up this post there was someone talking about running over groups of cyclists if they maliciously surrounded their car. Try to remain calm. You’re generally not allowed to just _murder_ people who attempt to inconvenience, detain, or rob you, even though they are ‘being dicks’. That’s not how crime is dealt with in a stable society. It’s not a ‘new reality’. I really hope we’re not devolving into a pl…

How far gone are you to think that kidnapping and robbery aren't violent acts that justify violent responses? If you try to detain me illegally (also known as false imprisonment) you're just asking for a face full of lead. But 'Murder' is unlawful killing. This would be self-defense.

The acts I listed [edit: or the one in the grandparent post - it’s literally talking about putting a cone on a car…] don’t necessarily involve violence.

Even if they do, self-defense has to be proportional. Laws obviously differ in different places, but, generally, yes, you can defend yourself. You generally can’t kill someone unless you yourself are under a plausible threat of death though.

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#329

Post by evandale »

jtriangle wrote: post #237
cashsterling wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why the other reply to this post got downvoted to hell. THe person has a point. Fully autonomous cars are cool... don't get me wrong. But electric cars and autonomous electric/gas cars are probably not the right solution to our person transport needs. using energy to move a 4000 lb vehicle to transport one or two 200 lb humans is not energy-efficient... most of the energy is spent just moving the vehicle…

Cool, you have an affordable, tenuously waterproofed, chinese mass produced e-bike, it's your only available mode of transportation, you need to go into the office for a meeting, and it's raining. Welcome to hell. Also, not sure if you've used public transportation recently, but man, it SUCKS. Far less time efficient than a car, often crowded during the times you want to use it, and ZERO enforcement of proper etiquet…

> Also, not sure if you've used public transportation recently, but man, it SUCKS. Far less time efficient than a car, often crowded during the times you want to use it, and ZERO enforcement of proper etiquette or rules or regulations as far as riders are concerned.

I've been using public transportation for 13 years and it's better than its ever been in terms of speed, reliability, and the crowds.

Where have you experienced public transportation that is worse off today than it was in the past?

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#330

Post by kelnos »

dekhn wrote: post #106
paxys wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, I could start coning cruise cars, and cause these numbers to skyrocket And why would that not be a valid data point? Cars driving on public roads need to successfully handle all regular day-to-day situations, not just the happy path. It seems like almost every day I run into some Cruise or Waymo (mostly Cruise) vehicle stuck in the middle of the street blocking traffic, and that should not be excused a…

During the height of Critical Mass, bicyclists would surround minivans and keep them from leaving. Drivers don't know what to do because if they push too hard they'll knock over and injure a cyclist. I don't expect self-driving cars to deal any better with cones, or any hostile action towards a car.

I kinda think a vehicle being surrounded by people on bicycles is a much different situation than someone putting a traffic cone on the hood.

I think you're actually disproving your own point: a human driver would immediately know what to do if someone put a cone on their hood. But both a human driver and AV would have a similarly difficult time when faced with a bunch of cyclists surrounding them.

Post reply on HN